NCJ Number
19743
Journal
Ohio State Law Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 1 Dated: (1975) Pages: 190-200
Date Published
1975
Length
11 pages
Annotation
U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED WITHOUT A MAJORITY OPINION OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT'S RULING THAT WARRANTLESS SEIZURE AND WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF 'LEWIS' CAR ALREADY IN POLICE CUSTODY VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Abstract
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JOINED IN THE REVERSAL OPINION BY THREE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT, STATED THAT THE REMOVAL OF PAINT FROM THE 'EXTERIOR' OF THE CAR DID NOT INVADE ANY FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT; THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE TECHNICIAN WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; AND THAT THE POLICE ARE JUSTIFIED IN CONDUCTING A WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF AN AUTOMOBILE WHERE THE OWNER IS ALERTED TO POLICE INTENTIONS AND THEREFORE MOTIVATED TO DESTROY OR REMOVE EVIDENCE. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, LEADING THE DISSENT, CITED THE ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCUSING THE FAILURE OF THE POLICE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SEIZE THE AUTOMOBILE. THIS CASE NOTE FOCUSES ON THE COURT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF LEWIS' AUTOMOBILE AND THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SEARCH. THE DISCUSSION ALSO DEALS WITH A BURDEN PROOF ISSUE RAISED BY THE BLACKMUN OPINION. THE 'MOVING VEHICLE' EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR SEIZURE OF AUTOMOBILES (CITED BY JUSTICE BLACKMUN) IS EXAMINED AND FOUND INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT SINCE THE BLACKMUN OPINION ASSUMED EXIGENCY MERELY BECAUSE THE ITEM SEIZED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SEARCHED WAS AN AUTOMOBILE, IT EXPANDS THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE ON PROBABLE CAUSE WITH ONLY A FICTION OF EXIGENCY AND WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF. HE CONCLUDES THAT THE BLACKMUN OPINION ALSO INDICATES THE COURT'S INCLINATION TO DRAW ALL INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION ON THE ISSUE OF JUSTIFICATION FOR WARRANTLESS ACTION. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)